The new MRAPs are pretty cool. I was checking out the cougar a while ago.
The new MRAPs are pretty cool. I was checking out the cougar a while ago.
Higgipedia
SOC-11
I hear you, and I can do nothing for your suspension of disbelief. I do submit, though, how much less cool the Escape from the Death Star would have been if Han and Luke were playing video games instead of sitting in cupolas...
G
gloriousbattle
Guest
Oh, I forgot one pet peve.
The major Traveller "quirky rule" I don't use is hexadecimal notation
I never saw any use for the UPP. What benefit from an unreadable string of digits on which you can't do ordinary base 10 math? Since the first three characteristics function as hit points in Traveller, I want to be able to easily do subtractions, etc.
Also, even where it does work, it works only for humans. Powerful alien races that go beyond "F" don't fit in the one digit per stat thing, and "G" is not a hexidecimal number!
Rant over.
The major Traveller "quirky rule" I don't use is hexadecimal notation
I never saw any use for the UPP. What benefit from an unreadable string of digits on which you can't do ordinary base 10 math? Since the first three characteristics function as hit points in Traveller, I want to be able to easily do subtractions, etc.
Also, even where it does work, it works only for humans. Powerful alien races that go beyond "F" don't fit in the one digit per stat thing, and "G" is not a hexidecimal number!
Rant over.
As Aramis said...the sensor suite provides a virtual reality simulation of the surroundings of the player's ship allowing for the tactile judgment of the gunner to select targets and tacit knowledge of standard tactics of their opponent to make the hit. That is what the Gunner skill is. No amount of software can duplicate it...for in the other ship there another sentient capable of doing wild and crazy things. Combined with ranges, debris and other interstellar matter that clouds any dogfight. As one Dragon article put it, Traveller Starship fights resemble pre-modern battles in which each side lines up and takes potshots at one another until they come close enough to use a bayonet and even then are usually too scared to use it.
Good definition. Maybe could be used in T5s definition the skill.
Probably because I'm a programmer, I never had any trouble with it, and I actually liked the semi-inscrutable nature of all the Universal X Profile numbers. It added the feel of a hidebound Vilani bureaucracy to the setting.
Same here. Having started programming way back when mem was almost nonexistent, I felt very comfortable with the system and it DID create a certain atmosphere consistent with the game setting.
G
gloriousbattle
Guest
Anything that you believe adds to the "feel" of the game is a benefit, because, in the end, the illusion of being in a science fiction universe is what we are trying to achieve, so, if it works for you and your players, go for it!
In the same vein, I do not print out planetary maps, subsector maps, or library data, but use the computer monitor for these things, exactly as they would do on their Type S scout.
Good example too.
That's fine, and quite well arranged in fact. But is there any reason to actually fire the gun from the turret under normal circumstances? Couldn't it be operated from a bridge workstation assuming the assistance of a sophant is needed? And wouldn't that usually be preferable? The gunner has better protection, and is in closer communication with the captain, the sensor officers, etc as well as being able to see the information from the bridge computers at a glance.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
To play devil's advocate (because I like turret gunners )...
One leaps to mind, no chance of other damage (like say bridge, computer, crew, or power* hits) resulting in the turret being unable to fire. Local control means only if the turret is hit will it not be able to fire. Granted Traveller doesn't model this, so it's very much a MTU refinement.
* for missiles only of course, losing power means no energy weapons naturally
There's also the volume issue. I find 1ton works for the whole deal, turret, weapons space, fire control, and gunner station. I didn't find the idea of it being all control (fire control and gunner station) per the early rules satisfactory. Neither did I see making it all weapon as suitable either.
So imtu you designate a hardpoint(s) and reserve tonnage locally for the system. Until installed that tonnage could be put to other limited uses, but you could not decide to mount a weapon somewhere else.
It could, and can be imtu, any other workstation in fact (all can double for any other, one could even fly the ship from a connected turret workstation), but with less functionality since it's not a dedicated station. Only the local station grants full functionality.
Naturally. That's a core condition of CT.
I don't see why. Better protection? Not suggested by the rules in any way. Closer communication with others? Trades off closer communication with the weapon. Being able to see the bridge displays would help targeting how? More likely to me that the dedicated displays of the turret would be preferred. And if you're giving the gunners their own tactical share of the bridge displays you're doing it by reducing that of the rest of the crew there.
One thing I have done, given the increasing size of the bridge in very large ships is set some of it aside for gunners operating batteries and heavy weapons. There is still a workstation and control local to turrets but generally unmanned. If your fire control is disabled (damage reducing batteries) you may still (if sufficiently crewed) man the turrets and return some of them to combat. But again that's a mtu refinement, not official.
And finally, imtu, turrets also serve as escape pods for the gunner manning the turret. A turret kill imtu is usually due to damage that fires the auto eject. Damage which would have resulted in the turret being destroyed and doing more damage to the ship if it hadn't been ejected. The workstation separates from the rest and the gunner (who should be wearing imtu combat armour vacc suit) drifts and waits (extra LS in the ejection seat) to be picked up by search and rescue or captured by the enemy. Most other crew have to rely on boats or simply abandon ship by vacc-suit out an airlock, and they have little chance in a catastrophic hit.
)...One leaps to mind, no chance of other damage (like say bridge, computer, crew, or power* hits) resulting in the turret being unable to fire. Local control means only if the turret is hit will it not be able to fire. Granted Traveller doesn't model this, so it's very much a MTU refinement.
* for missiles only of course, losing power means no energy weapons naturally
There's also the volume issue. I find 1ton works for the whole deal, turret, weapons space, fire control, and gunner station. I didn't find the idea of it being all control (fire control and gunner station) per the early rules satisfactory. Neither did I see making it all weapon as suitable either.
So imtu you designate a hardpoint(s) and reserve tonnage locally for the system. Until installed that tonnage could be put to other limited uses, but you could not decide to mount a weapon somewhere else.
It could, and can be imtu, any other workstation in fact (all can double for any other, one could even fly the ship from a connected turret workstation), but with less functionality since it's not a dedicated station. Only the local station grants full functionality.
Naturally. That's a core condition of CT.
I don't see why. Better protection? Not suggested by the rules in any way. Closer communication with others? Trades off closer communication with the weapon. Being able to see the bridge displays would help targeting how? More likely to me that the dedicated displays of the turret would be preferred. And if you're giving the gunners their own tactical share of the bridge displays you're doing it by reducing that of the rest of the crew there.
One thing I have done, given the increasing size of the bridge in very large ships is set some of it aside for gunners operating batteries and heavy weapons. There is still a workstation and control local to turrets but generally unmanned. If your fire control is disabled (damage reducing batteries) you may still (if sufficiently crewed) man the turrets and return some of them to combat. But again that's a mtu refinement, not official.
And finally, imtu, turrets also serve as escape pods for the gunner manning the turret. A turret kill imtu is usually due to damage that fires the auto eject. Damage which would have resulted in the turret being destroyed and doing more damage to the ship if it hadn't been ejected. The workstation separates from the rest and the gunner (who should be wearing imtu combat armour vacc suit) drifts and waits (extra LS in the ejection seat) to be picked up by search and rescue or captured by the enemy. Most other crew have to rely on boats or simply abandon ship by vacc-suit out an airlock, and they have little chance in a catastrophic hit.
I worked on the assumption that turrents were akin to gunner's pods...highly clustered networked integrated workstations that were too small for most sensors to pick out (especially on a fast moving target like a starship). Whereas, the bridge is often an easy target. The Imperium would not want to concentrate all Command & Control to a single location - least one would lose a starship over one hit. Hence, the multiple turrents can be re-routed to the bridge but it never is advisable.
In this way, starship combat resembles that of an aircraft carrier. Whereas, other times, it is a submarine. And. other times a bomber. Hence, the multiplicity of tactics that a good captain must execute in a split second.
How do you target something in the center of a ship & not something hanging outside the hull?
That's reasonable enough-for spoiled, starched and snobby man-of-wars-men. Why shouldn't they have redundancy if they think it useful?
However a lot of the combat in TTU is on the small ship level. Could Free-traders afford to hire someone primarily to be a gunner when for instance, a pilot's or navigator's apprentice could be gotten at a lower salary and the same rations? Especially as it is hard to see much difference between the bridge being disabled and the ship being destroyed in a ship that size. Yet gunner is one of the ratings on a Free Trader.
Yes, it would depend on the economics of the situation...if you are a free trader and finding half your cargo is being lost to pirates and your insurance premiums are over the top and no broker wants to deal with you...then I think a gunner provides a good investment. Their pay grade would depend upon their skill, as per the rules.
Small ship combat is usually in most rules sets quite lethal when it gets close enough to spot and target the turrets. At a distance, it is taking potshots at each other from a safe distance. And, luck (ie dice) will determine the fate...but pirates have the deck somewhat stacked as the players don't know they are so close...when the transponders are turned off...and COACC is either ineffectual or not present...those pirate havens would not invest heavily in SDBs would they...
I was responding to a comment on large military ship combat. My point being that turrets are FAR more likely to get a hit than a bridge buried in the center of a ship. That even applies to small ship combat.
If you look at the design of most ships...the secondary bridge is buried deep but the primary bridge is still usually at the nose or front. Yes, naval causalities would be high in the turrets or batteries but that is the high price of service.
Think of the Age of Sail, who usually copped it...when two or more Capital ships were duking it out...
I'm only considering logical, realistic designs.
Turrets or not Turrets
In the original Battlestar Galactica, both the Colonial Battlestars and the Cylon Basestars used automatic turrets, which tracked enemy fighters, targeted them, and fired even without a target lock.
In Star Wars, they had both types of turrets: manned, as we saw in A New Hope when Han and Luke climbed in, as well as on smaller vehicles in the era of the Clone Wars (and anti-aircraft-style guns on the Death Star in A New Hope as well); and unmanned, where we saw a small automatic turret controlled from the cockpit of the Falcon when in the Hoth hanger to fire at the incoming Snowtroopers.
In Star Trek, for the most part, we simply see weapons fired from the bridge at the push of a button, but in TOS "Balance of Terror", we see a specific weapons-control room not unlike the firing room of a submarine.
I can't see a small, old and broken-down trader or scout or pirate vessel having auto-tracking and -firing turrets, but a large vessel with dozens of turrets should have that level of automation; we have some weapons systems like that now on US Navy vessels such as the Phalanx defense system---you flip the switch and the autoprogramming takes over to shoot down incoming missiles. Bad programming, of course, can allow it to shoot down passenger transport jets
The turret controls should be on the bridge. However, on a smaller ship without a bridge--the Millennium Falcon--and presumably a lesser computer model...it makes more sense to actively man your turrets when attacked by fighters. You can probably fire directly at larger craft from the the bridge easily enough, but small vessels will likely have too much maneuverability (and too great of numbers) to be hit by the lesser computer model's auto-tracking program.
Gordon Long
In the original Battlestar Galactica, both the Colonial Battlestars and the Cylon Basestars used automatic turrets, which tracked enemy fighters, targeted them, and fired even without a target lock.
In Star Wars, they had both types of turrets: manned, as we saw in A New Hope when Han and Luke climbed in, as well as on smaller vehicles in the era of the Clone Wars (and anti-aircraft-style guns on the Death Star in A New Hope as well); and unmanned, where we saw a small automatic turret controlled from the cockpit of the Falcon when in the Hoth hanger to fire at the incoming Snowtroopers.
In Star Trek, for the most part, we simply see weapons fired from the bridge at the push of a button, but in TOS "Balance of Terror", we see a specific weapons-control room not unlike the firing room of a submarine.
I can't see a small, old and broken-down trader or scout or pirate vessel having auto-tracking and -firing turrets, but a large vessel with dozens of turrets should have that level of automation; we have some weapons systems like that now on US Navy vessels such as the Phalanx defense system---you flip the switch and the autoprogramming takes over to shoot down incoming missiles. Bad programming, of course, can allow it to shoot down passenger transport jets
The turret controls should be on the bridge. However, on a smaller ship without a bridge--the Millennium Falcon--and presumably a lesser computer model...it makes more sense to actively man your turrets when attacked by fighters. You can probably fire directly at larger craft from the the bridge easily enough, but small vessels will likely have too much maneuverability (and too great of numbers) to be hit by the lesser computer model's auto-tracking program.
Gordon Long
